tv [untitled] August 27, 2010 9:00am-9:30am PST
public comment? 3t>> excuse me. conservation. i cannot tell you the please i am to watch the progress on this program. in fact, this is under budget and under schedules, and are some challenges, as the commissioner noted. there are a lot of challenges behind you. .this is gratifying to see. thank you. president crowley: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. eric brooks, and we have been
working in san francisco over the last few years, and furs, i want to make a quick point to clarify that. when i say i am representing these groups, like the ones that were in the letter, it means i have gone through a careful process of contacting them all. there was one of those groups that seemed to be indicating -- a leader of the coalition, and specifically, after the meeting was open, they were not supportive of the coalition, and i verified with them that they are still supportive of the coalition, so that leads me into where we aren't at with regard to the process. is very important that you know that coalition is not in agreement with how this is
rolling out, at all. from the beginning of this process, we have been organizing to make sure about the plan, which of believe you have all right now, that this has all been one project, that pieces of it are not separated out. elastic holders meeting, we a little aggressively made clear to staff that we did not agree with this process going forward this way, and we should take a few more months to nail it down, so please understand that at this point, they are in a complete disconnect on strategy moving forward. as to specifics, the big issue we have is dividing this up in pieces, what we specifically need to make sure of, now the we are in a better process, is that
when the rfo process begins, it needs to move one rfo for the entire package of renewables, efficiency, and solar, installations, and not be divided up into pieces. the project is not going to have the economies of scale. if we do not retain the integrity, so now the we are in will be considered a sort of a mess, we went to an least make sure that the are of a process is started immediately so we can get up to speed as quickly as possible and get that rfo is one big rfo. you, commissioner vietor, those
rec's, we want them zero-fied as quickly as possible. president crowley: next. commissioner: i would like to hear about another program and how the sfpuc is connected to that. i would like some update on where the state is it. >> and just to be clear, you are talking about the pg&e smart meter program. commissioner vietor: yes, and i do understand. a brief conversation about the status. >> we can do that at the next
meeting. >> ok. president crowley: mike, can we do that? >> yes. president crowley: next item. clerk: all items under the consent calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single vote, unless an item is requested to be separated. public -- to be separate. a, staff recommendations. this is for a memorandum of agreement with the city of san bruno. b, staff recommendation to
approve an amendment to power enterprise project funded agreement, with no time necessary no time extension necessary, in order to continue to accommodate design projects to improve power system reliability and meet western electricity coordinating council and north american electric reliability corp. regulatory requirements. c, approving a water and a prize water system improvement program, with urs/soha jv, to provide additional engineering services for design, bid, awards, and construction support, necessary to address the geotechnical and structural deficiencies found under amendment 1 and authorize the general manager of the san
francisco public utilities commission to execute this amendment, increasing the amount by over $1 million. d, a staff recommendation to increase a contract not to exceed 1 million to one to $25,000 for a total not to exceed two years -- $1,225,000. e, general engineering san francisco, a peninsula, east bay to hetch hetchy, an enterprise funded contract, for a total contract duration of three years. f, staff recommendation. accept work performed by kj
woods for water enterprise, water system improvement program, a funded contract duration of 360 consecutive calendar days and authorized final payment. g, a staff recommendation to advise the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission with a three-year renewal option for the san francisco headstart at the southeast community facility. h, a staff recommendation to accept work performed by ntk construction, increase in the contract value, for larger than expected quantities of soil filled for the solo cap, for a total contract amount of almost $1.50 million, with a total contract duration of 127 consecutive calendar days and
enterprises' water system improvement program funded project cuw364, lawrence livermore water quality improvement projects to fund the proposed modification. president crowley: colleagues, anyone that you want to pull specifically? ok. moved and seconded. all of those in favor, please signify by saying aye. any public comment? moving on, michael. clerk: you are now into the regular business calendar. item nine, a discussion and possible action to suspend world no. 6 of the rules of order of the san francisco public utilities commission to allow for the election of officers at a duly notice to meeting other than the first regular meeting after the first day of august.
>> commissioners, this august 1 date was chosen because that was the date that the commissioners expire. we're still in that 60-day period, and i would recommend that we suspend a rule to the highest state of october -- to the first day of october. it would change it for now. what i think we would want to do is come back in october and revisit it. president rohcrowley: colleagues, i will move that. you might want to read rule 6, michael, as it has been amended. clerk: certainly.
after the first day of august each year, they show the let president and vice president of the commission, each to serve for a one-year term. it is an eligible to serve consecutive 1-year term. -- ineligible. each and any of these may be suspended by order of the majority of members of the commission if entered upon the minutes of the commission. it could be that you suspend this rule and move the election by motion to the first meeting after the first of october. president crowley:
commissioners? so move korea all of those in favor of suspending this role -- so move. all of those in favor? clerk: mr. president, an agenda item 10, conduct a public hearing on the public health goals for the direct water quality division director to submit a letter to the california department of public health, documenting that such a hearing has been held. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i and the water quality division director. my name is -- i am here to present results of the 2010 report. california law requires that we triannual report. if there is not a california
health care of all, we are required to use the federal. ú)íd9whr-- health-care bowl. healbvth0wiñc]- -- health caree are required to use the federal. we're required to submit a port by june 30 and to the response of public comment on this report, which is why we are here right now. ?'this diagram to a relationship -- give you a relationship. generally speaking, if we had a rather mature a limit of 100, we want to make sure we do not violate it. the public health goal is generally much lower than the
regulatory. we will talk about arsenic. roughly about 1/10,000. i also want to note that out of the 95 contaminants' that we have to monitor -- contaminants that we have to monitor, we wanted to be conservative. we did not have a problem technically with arsenic. arsenic is a naturally occurring element from a number of potential sources, including runoff, industrial sources, treated wood, and you can also see it in some chemicals. the potential health risk is a carcinogen and also does adverse
environmental effects. -- has adverse environmental effects. you can see that we cannot even measure it. it is such an incredibly small number that you would not be able to see that it was there or not. we have done some special studies, pimm and we saw one at a high level of 2.6. in terms of our mitigation, we have a chemical quality control system, and we will do analysis of this treatment chemicals, so
if we get chlorine or something else, -- we also have a watershed management program. where arsenic could potentially get into a water system. one contaminant that i mentioned, this is a diagram of customers. the blue part is ours. we have taken a number of actions. this was to remove thousands of them, so we are well out. this was accelerated by the meter reading program. the federal government allows a
8% leg. in california, is 0.25%, and that was january of this year. we have also been involved in other programs. this is also to take a look at the pilot program, finding faucet's that did not have lived in them. that program from the commission goes on and continues to this day. some of the health effects, the regulatory limit is 15. we did not detect it in any of the source waters before, as i mentioned.
the main issue is up to-control, and to use lead free prices were possible. california law is going to be the lead free version. this will be improving. this is the law that mandated that the level go down, so we were to to get that, and the current legislation right now, instead of this california but a national standard, this is not something at 8%. we also have testing for a nominal fee.
we will provide testing for free. so, in summary, we are in compliance with all of the regulatory standards. we believe that this is trying to figure out what the sources are, and arson and, again, this is something we wanted to report to you. a recommendation is that you send a letter to the state department. thank you. danica speaking, you just use
regulatory compliance. we have seen arsenic but at very, very low levels. we said we found in a very, very few samples. it is extremely rare, and we are not concerned about it. we have reported in the past, and that is another reason. president crowley: commissioners? commissioner vietor: i do not know if you need a resolution, but i would like to talk about the letter. to write a letter supporting the legislation, either at the state currently or with compliance.
>> there is the letter that the general manager submitted, so we are -- commissioner vietor: a resolution of some such, i think it would be good. do we need a motion on this? uh-huh. president crowley: i think we should move item 10. do we need a resolution on that? clerk: we do not need to have that in order for the puc. president crowley: then i would just move the resolution.
before we close this debate -- clerk: we have no speaker cards. president crowley: seeing that there is no public comment, all of those in favor, say aye. next item, please. clerk: by a number 11, a discussion and possible action to approve a san francisco operations and maintenance plan for the san francisco sewer water system to address sanitary sewer overflows, which applies only to be approximately 1 mile of sanitary sewage-only surprise in san francisco. -- pipes in san francisco. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with waste water. this is an operations and maintenance plan. we have to have this as part of our permit.
i have my collection system manager with me, mr. harris, and he has a wonderful map showing where these areas are, and he can answer any questions. so this operations plan is required by the state and specifically applies to areas delineated by the map compaq about 5000 linear together. -- delineated by the map, about 5000 linear altogether.
>> can you point out what that might be? >> that is the point. it covers 5000 linear feet of sewer. we will have more sanitary systems in the future, but we are required by the state, since we do have some, and the whole plan is of these on the map. >> 5000 linear feet, a couple in the presidio, lake merced. >> that is correct. the registry is i actually on the border -- is actually on the border. you're exactly right, those are the areas. >> f.a.q, tom. he highlighted it. all right.
-- president crowley: colleagues, anything on item 11? ok, any public comment? clerk: we have no speaker comments. president crowley: seeing none, and will entertain a motion. all in favor, say aye. clerk: mr. president, item 12, a discussion and possible action to authorize the general manager of san francisco public utilities commission to execute on behalf of the city and county of san francisco a memorandum of agreement with the united states department of the interior, national park service, in yosemite national park, for an amount not to exceed $30 million in with a duration of five years to provide for watershed protection, collaborative environment and stewardship studies, and security for the yosemite
national park watersheds that supply water to the san francisco regional water system. >> there are a couple of things that are different about this agreement. this was reconstructed around the filtration. this time, there are actually more things that we do. it is still absolutely essential. there is also the environmental stewardship component, so it is threefold. when the original agreement was signed, that was about $2.75 million per year, which was about $3.50 billion over the last several years, plus special studies. the security agreement, there was the first one from 2007- 20008.
and then we have come to vot-- 5 million has grown to about $5.20 million per year, so the $30 million per year over the next five years, which assumes inflation and growth in those programs over the next five years, so that is when we get to the cumulative $30 million, and there is a relationship with these other areas. president crowley: ok, colleagues? second. before we vote on this, any public comment? >> just one comment, commissioners. at times, we are criticized >>
$30,000. a lot of things happen there, including the environment and stewardship, and that is more like $5 million per year, and that is not categorized as rent, it is categorized as mou. >> i have participated in an annual meeting with park staff, and there was a roomful of people, about 30 parks of, and about 30 puc -- about 30 parks staff. >>